The ban on Monday, April 27 of the African Independent Television (AIT) from covering the functions of President-elect Muhammadu Buhari at Defence House polarised public opinion.
Without his knowledge or consent, a security aide sparked the controversy with his directive to the AIT crew not to cover the visit to Buhari of a Cuban delegation led by its ambassador to Nigeria, Carlos E. Trejo Sosa.
The ban was confirmed by Buhari’s spokesman, Garba Shehu, who said it would be revoked only after security, professional standards and ethical issues were resolved with AIT to the satisfaction of the incoming First Family.
On the one hand, Buhari’s critics claimed clairvoyance with righteous anger at the ban. Furious condemnations saw it as the dictatorial hand-writing on the wall which spells danger to democracy even before the democracy convert is sworn into office.
On the contrary, Buhari’s supporters equally saw the ban as a predictable kickback. They denounced the reckless, unprofessional and totally partisan, even biased coverage of the election against him as inviting it.
Moreover, even if Buhari is willing to, there would never be a time when he could invite all reporters from every media house in the country at the same time. After all, President Goodluck Jonathan never invited all media houses to his Presidential chat studios.
In other words, unlike private gatherings of groups and societies which discriminate in coverage, a public official, especially the Number One citizen-elect, is like a gold fish. He has nowhere to hide. What would have been his private affair is precisely what somebody, somewhere, considers public interest.
Two significant lessons emerged from the unofficial ban of AIT. The first is, how professional are journalists and their media? Those who flared the unprofessional excesses of AIT coverage during the election – complete with hate speeches maligning Buhari – argued that the vengeance was deserved.
Professionalism in news gathering and reporting was thrown to the dogs. All the gate-keeping roles of journalists in everyday coverage of events were substituted for the most vile propaganda scripts.
They may be paid for or negotiated with corrupt electronic media owners and print publishers who imposed them on hapless professionals – not to be edited. In addition, cash-and-carry reporters and editors also had their corrupt runs during the campaign.
Bad, unprofessional scripts flow along a unidirectional path in any media house: an ethically upright publisher, an assumed member of the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN), can always stop a bad script from his editor.
Even an ethically ignorant publisher may stop a script if it clashes with his pecuniary or social class interest or both – and they do it without compunction.
But an excellent script which threatens the commercial interest of a publisher may, in the unlikely event, go into one edition or on air before it is taken off and the queries and suspensions follow.
This is where the big questions which trammel media excellence must be raised. When will greedy, ethically uninformed NPAN money-spinners wisen up to moderate their pecuniary interest to balance professionalism in media coverage? Or anything backed by cash invariably wins the day?
When will the Guild of Editors (NGE) and the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) divert attention from members’ welfare to advise their NPAN owners about professionalism driving more revenue than corrupt negotiations of unprofessional scripts which humiliate the entire profession?
The second enormous benefit thrown up by the ban is, fortunately, after three decades, the supremacy of the party. This virtue was displayed when All Progressives Congress (APC) spokesman, Lai Mohammed, issued a statement to overrule the presidential ban.
Criticism petered out on the social media when Mohammed announced the party’s position that all accredited media houses, AIT included, are free to cover Buhari’s activities. It was the revival of party supremacy since the overthrow of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) in December 1983.
Buhari, as is well-known, is highly disciplined and therefore inflexible. The fact that he deferred to the party’s decision is a plus.
It is a wake-up call to all the leaders of political parties to think carefully through policies, programmes and pronouncements with their advisers and appointees before making them public. In cases requiring legislation, National Assembly leaders make good sounding boards to bounce ideas off for fine-tuning.
Only unenlightened leaders at the national, state and local levels would underestimate the importance of party supremacy.
An efficient and effective party takes care of all the inconsequentials likely to distract their candidate at the top – president, governor, or council chairman – from concentrating on the implementation of its manifesto. His success earns him and the party re-election.
South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) provides exemplary stability and enlightened decision-making.
In fact, respected, powerful party chairmen, living above board with integrity and honesty, especially like the five from the Second Republic at all levels, immune themselves from corrupt deals which tie them slavishly to the apron strings of their party leaders in power.
Contracts for commission agents, subsidy for relations, unmerited privileges for children, among others, invariably pulled some down to facilitate their overthrow.
Professional journalists must be there to remind them that the pervasive corruption in public office starts from shameless party chairmen doing the beggarly rounds at the expense of important duties. Their subordinates emulate them.
Good governance flows from efficient party supremacy at all levels. Now that the APC has revived it, we have seen that its immediate benefit is worth encouraging all other parties to root for it – and the APC to sustain it.
